Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My article examines how researchers use video recordings to gain insight into organizational phenomena. I conduct a literature review of articles published from 1990 to 2015 in six top-tier organizational journals: Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Management Studies, Organization Science, Organization Studies, and Strategic Management Journal. My review identifies 56 articles where video was central to the research design. My analysis demonstrates how researchers used the audible, visible, and timing affordances of video recordings to investigate organizational phenomena, including rhetoric, emotion, group interactions, and workplace studies. By exploring how researchers studied these phenomena, I show how video illuminates aspects of situated action and interaction that are difficult to evaluate using other kinds of data. My review contributes to the literature on video in organization studies by providing an overview of video-based research in these journals, highlighting the diversity of approaches used to collect and analyze video, and illustrating some of the ways that video helped to advance knowledge around organizational phenomena.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it